lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] xfs: Use the correct style for SPDX License Identifier
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 11:01:38AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-04-27 at 19:46 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:41:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2020-04-27 at 19:29 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 08:56:18AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 07:05:09PM +0530, Nishad Kamdar wrote:
> > > > > > This patch corrects the SPDX License Identifier style in
> > > > > > header files related to XFS File System support.
> > > > > > For C header files Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
> > > > > > mandates C-like comments (opposed to C source files where
> > > > > > C++ style should be used).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Changes made by using a script provided by Joe Perches here:
> > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/7/46.
> > > []
> > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ag_resv.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ag_resv.h
> > > []
> > > > > > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > > > > > -// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ */
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought we were supposed to use 'GPL-2.0-or-newer' because 'GPL-2.0+'
> > > > > is deprecated in some newer version of the SPDX standard?
> > > > >
> > > > > <shrug>
> > > >
> > > > The kernel follows the "older" SPDX standard, but will accept either,
> > > > it's up to the author. It is all documented in LICENSES/ if people
> > > > really want to make sure.
> > >
> > > I think the kernel should prefer the "newer" SPDX standard
> > > for any/all changes to these lines.
> > > ---
> > > LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 | 8 ++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 b/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0
> > > index ff0812..c50f93 100644
> > > --- a/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0
> > > +++ b/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0
> > > @@ -8,13 +8,13 @@ Usage-Guide:
> > > tag/value pairs into a comment according to the placement
> > > guidelines in the licensing rules documentation.
> > > For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 only' use:
> > > - SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > - or
> > > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > > + or the deprecated alternative
> > > + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or any later version' use:
> > > - SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > > - or
> > > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> > > + or the deprecated alternative
> > > + SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > > License-Text:
> >
> > At the moment, I do not, as the current ones are not "depreciated" at
> > all.
>
> https://spdx.org/licenses/
>
> shows the GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+ as deprecated.
>
> https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html
> https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0+.html
>

Again, we are not using the "new" version of the SPDX specification just
yet. We started out using one specific version, let's get the whole
kernel converted first before worrying about trying to keep up with
their newer releases please. We still have a ways to go...

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-27 20:37    [W:0.060 / U:0.560 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site